Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Mastika]

In 1880/1881 we had a "Provisional Government of Macedonia" that issued the following Manifesto:

Real Macedonians, faithful offspring of your fatherland!

Will you let your fatherland to be destroyed? Look at her, how she is suffocated in slavery, bleeding from the wounds that the surrounding nations have inflicted her with! Look at the heavy chains that the Sultan has put her in! In such a helpless state, all in tears, our dear Macedonia, our beloved fatherland is calling you: my faithful children, you descendents of Aristotle and Alexander the Great, you in whose veins flows Macedonian blood don’t leave me to die, help me! It would be a great shame for you, true Macedonians, if you remain silent witnesses of my burial. No, no, here are my awful bloody wounds, here are my heavy chains: beak them, heal my wounds, do whatever is in your power so the words “Allied and United Macedonia” can be written on the banner that I will raise. When you succeed victoriously, drive away the killer from this land, who fly the banner of discord and sow perilous ideas, dividing you, my children, into countless nations, and so united under the banner of Macedonia, as one nation, rise high that glorious banner and prepare to write single-mindedly on it:

“Long live the Macedonian nation! Long live Macedonia!”

Yes, however this Provisional Government was not a state, nor did it wield any power. It was only a lobby group, however it did try to work for the furthering of political and cultural freedoms in Macedonia. Sadly, this group is often overlooked in Macedonian history. It was an effort of the cooperation between Macedonians, Turks, Albanians, Greeks and Aromanians.

[sf.]

I am truley disappointed at peoples inability to understand key points

I will summerize them to avoid confusion:

Modern Macedonian State stems from the national awakening in 1903 and its ideals, which include Alexander the Great. It's creation was in 1944 based on ASOMs liberation. There was no Macedonian state inbetween those times, Macedonia was partitioned.

Macedonian identity, ethnicity, consciousness and blood stems from ancient times, as has been proven.

If you dont know what a state or State is (there is a difference) do some research before posting insulting posts. This was the essence of the discussion.

Peoples inability to understand or simply warp thier views because UMD was thrown in is tragic.

I generally agree with your sentiments. But could you clarify something, since apparently I might be ignorant on the matter? What is the difference between 'state' and 'State,' besides noun/proper noun?

[Volk]

Sure sf.

State can be a country or entity that is fully self governed, state is smaller entity part of a larger one. Eg: The states in Australia: NSW, VIC, SA ect or the states in US Texas, LA ect..

[sf.]

OK. I have never seen that distinction made.

[Buktop]

Buktop,

It doesn't matter whether the Ancient Macedonian state existed continuously - that fact that it did exist makes UMD's statement incorrect - except for the Metovisti who don't like to discuss Macedonian history before ASNOM (1903 the earliest). Just because it ceased to exist, why does that now exclude it as an example of when the name "Macedonia" was used "officially" by a Macedonian state?

No one is denying the existence of a historic Macedonian state, nowhere has this ever been denied. The origin of the CURRENT form of Macedonian state originated in a 1944 declaration by ASNOM.

The use of "Macedonia" is not being disputed, the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

Noone is saying that the existence of a state is necessary for the existence of a nation - you brought that up yourself. UMD's statement was that Macedonia did not use the name Macedonia "officially" until 1944 - completely ignoring the Ancient Macedonian state.

UMD's argument stated that the modern Macedonian state was founded in 1944, which is a fact, the topic of a historic territory, people, or sub-nation under subjugation was not touched upon in this particular statement. I brought up the example of the Jewish state of Israel to show you that your concerns are unfounded, and misplaced in this argument.

Using the argument that the Macedonian state started using the name "Macedonia" only in 1944 provides legitimacy to Greece's historical claims that the people of FYROM usurped the name "Macedonia" in the 1940's as a Titoist creation and have no historical claim to it.

Once again, the argument is not when we started using the name Macedonia, but the existence of the modern state. The argument that we are a Titoist creation holds no credibility in serious arguments, and was not mentioned. This argument is only held by extremist imbeciles and should be ignored.

As I have stated before, there were at various times, several instances of a Macedonian state, not a continuous one, but an incongruous line of appearances, the latest instance is the current Macedonian state, that was founded in 1944 by ASNOM, through self-determination, and was later reinforced through recognition by Tito and Yugoslavia. But the basis for it's existence rests in the hands of the Macedonian people, not some puppet master.

[Buktop]

Are you calling this guy a fool?

Peter Green (Historian and Professor of Classics at the University of Texas):

"Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe". [p.1]




Macedonian ethno-geographical and historical boundaries have not changed the last 25 centuries.

what happened to that ancient state? Romans, Byzantines, Turks, where was the Macedonian STATE? Please tell me which definition of State you are using because you obviously don't seem to understand it.

And we are not talking about continuity of a STATE but continuity of several statehood forms starting with a Kingdom, tetrarchy and monarchy, to several indipendent republic forms.

Your limited understanding of the term "State" is a result of the USA definition for the status of being a state, rather than being a territory or dependency.

there is no continuity from one statehood to another, they are different states, while retaining Macedonian identity.

If you haven't already realized we are discussing the CURRENT STATE of Macedonia, which does not follow a continuously existing State of Macedonia from antiquity, no matter how much you want it to be so, it isn't.

I know exactly which definition I am using, I provided several different definitions and Vangelovski provided me with the definition he used, and based on all those definitions there is no continuously existing Macedonian state!

[Buktop]

This is rubbish, IMO!

The name of the state is and was Macedonia and this is what Macedonians voted for in the referendum of 1991. Only the form of political organisation was changed from Socialist Republic(an) to just Republic(an) and thus this was reflected in the constitution, which was newly created in 1991.

It is fact,

in 1990 the government was changed to parliamentary democracy.

On April 16, 1991 the parliament adopted the constitutional amendment for removing the "Socialist" adjective from the official name of the country, and on June 7 the same year, the new name Republic of Macedonia was officially established.

The referendum question was for the secession from Yugoslavia and that took place September 8, 1991

No one disputed the use of Macedonia, we are discussing the "officially codified" name of the country that was changed, it was always called Macedonia.

[Mikail]

what happened to that ancient state? Romans, Byzantines, Turks, where was the Macedonian STATE? Please tell me which definition of State you are using because you obviously don't seem to understand it.

You are referring to Empires here. There was the Macedonian Empire prior to the Roman and later Eastern Roman Empire

[Buktop]

You are referring to Empires here. There was the Macedonian Empire prior to the Roman and later Eastern Roman Empire

According to

Peter Green (Historian and Professor of Classics at the University of Texas):

"Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe". [p.1]

posted by Bratot, he is suggesting that the empire constituted a state, which depending on the definition of state you are using can be true, but that is the point we are trying to argue when we say that the CURRENT Macedonian state was only founded in 1944. And yes you are correct, the Roman and East Roman empires later absorbed the Macedonian empire(state) and it ceased to exist, the territory and the people didn't go anywhere, just the existence of a sovereign entity known as a state.

[Vangelovski]

Sure sf.

State can be a country or entity that is fully self governed, state is smaller entity part of a larger one. Eg: The states in Australia: NSW, VIC, SA ect or the states in US Texas, LA ect..

Volk,

Did you go to the same school of politics as Meto and Buktop????

[Vangelovski]

No one is denying the existence of a historic Macedonian state, nowhere has this ever been denied. The origin of the CURRENT form of Macedonian state originated in a 1944 declaration by ASNOM.

The use of "Macedonia" is not being disputed, the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

UMD's argument stated that the modern Macedonian state was founded in 1944, which is a fact, the topic of a historic territory, people, or sub-nation under subjugation was not touched upon in this particular statement. I brought up the example of the Jewish state of Israel to show you that your concerns are unfounded, and misplaced in this argument.

Once again, the argument is not when we started using the name Macedonia, but the existence of the modern state. The argument that we are a Titoist creation holds no credibility in serious arguments, and was not mentioned. This argument is only held by extremist imbeciles and should be ignored.

As I have stated before, there were at various times, several instances of a Macedonian state, not a continuous one, but an incongruous line of appearances, the latest instance is the current Macedonian state, that was founded in 1944 by ASNOM, through self-determination, and was later reinforced through recognition by Tito and Yugoslavia. But the basis for it's existence rests in the hands of the Macedonian people, not some puppet master.

Buktop,

UMD's ill-thought out statements about Macedonia using the name Macedonia 'officially' since 1944 reinforce the Greek argument that the Macedonian people have usurped the name Macedonia.

Greece claims that the name Macedonia is Greek and has been since ancient times and that Tito "created" the Macedonian people in 1944. UMD makes a statement that Macedonia has only used the name "officially" since 1944 and does not go into any further detail.

Add this to UMD comments that "antiquitisation" in Macedonia is creating unecessary tensions with Greece (and therefore is an illegitimate process) and UMD's refusal to acknowledge Macedonian history earlier than the 19th century and essentially they are confirming the Greek claim.

[Pelister]

UMD's argument stated that the modern Macedonian state was founded in 1944, which is a fact, the topic of a historic territory, people, or sub-nation under subjugation was not touched upon in this particular statement. I brought up the example of the Jewish state of Israel to show you that your concerns are unfounded, and misplaced in this argument.

It wasn't "founded" in 1944. It was "Realized" in 1944. Its foundations go much deeper. In fact a stronger case can be made that it was founded in 1903.

But Meto's precise words were "Macedonia only became a country in 1944". Now given what we know about the Greek discourse that we were first invented in 1944, that our ethnicity, our language and our culture were "founded" for the first time in 1944 - to use the words of Iavakos Michailidis "we were literally invented overnight" - isn't this kind of UMD rhetoric just plain stupid? UMD has a TALENT FOR TAKING "FACTS" OUT OF THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT, which is precisely what is NOT needed here. Historical context is everything. The problem for the rest of us Macedonians is that politicians, and politician lovers like UMD think they are "Above" history and above historical disputes, and that "as politicians" they can overcome these problems. This is whats driving them and motivating them. As "politicians" UMD loonies believe they can bypass certain historical facts - this is why over the years we have seen UMD "consistently" make one compromise after another. UMD believes in the negotiations, because it believes the negotiations are the ONLY way we can overcome our historical differences. This means bending over, it means countless, countless little compromises. Why would UMD be so behind a process that negates us? Is the purpose of backing Greece within the framework of these negotiations, giving the Greek position legitimacy "to overcome our differences"?

What kind of compromises does UMD have for us, and what are UMD willing to concede? I think the answers are found right here.

Meto Koloski said:

" ... Macedonia must modify its name ... ".

Its hard evidence of what UMD are really all about.

Meto Koloski said:

" ... We accept the term FYROM ... "

Its hard evidence.

[Bratot]

what happened to that ancient state? Romans, Byzantines, Turks, where was the Macedonian STATE? Please tell me which definition of State you are using because you obviously don't seem to understand it.

there is no continuity from one statehood to another, they are different states, while retaining Macedonian identity.

If you haven't already realized we are discussing the CURRENT STATE of Macedonia, which does not follow a continuously existing State of Macedonia from antiquity, no matter how much you want it to be so, it isn't.

I know exactly which definition I am using, I provided several different definitions and Vangelovski provided me with the definition he used, and based on all those definitions there is no continuously existing Macedonian state!

I will add only this, if we follow your logic than after the WW II all of the countries which fell under German and Italian occupation stoped existing as states.

• Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
  
• The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

And a normal average person, not familiar with the international law will think all of those countries were newly created after WW II.


Since the occupation doesn't mean a cease of the previous statehood if the occupied side didn't subjugated willingly which fortunately never was a case with Macedonia and it's ppl during all those centuries of occupation.


You mentioned Roman Empire where Macedonia was occupied and by force annected into the Empire, but you fail to present to will of the people to such annection, which in the international law can be legal or illegal.

Do I have to explain to you what is the difference between the two?

I also answered on your question

what happened to that ancient state? Romans, Byzantines, Turks, where was the Macedonian STATE?

but you do not have capacity to understand the forms of a statehood and the continuity of the struggle to preserve it.


The current Macedonian state was << liberated >> in WW II and not newly created.

All insurgents, all ups and down in the continuity of the statehood are historical proof for Macedonia as a territorial unit preserving it's historical boundaries.

[Mikail]

Far out Buktop. You're going off on a bit of a tangent here.

We all are aware the current Macedonian state came into existence in 1944. We are all aware that in order for this to occur, the demise of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Slovenes & Coats came about. Therefore the current states of Serbia, Croatia & Slovenia also were born as at 1944. Lots of fucking things happened and changed in 1944. Doesn't mean nothing ever existed prior this date.

Macedonia didn't suddenly appear in 1944 as Greeks like to suggest, and Macedonians aren't a people born of the circumstances surrounding events in 1944.

1944 is really insignificant when you take everything into perspective. It bears no relevance on how old the Macedonian state and/or nation truly is.

[Mikail]

It wasn't "founded" in 1944. It was "Realized" in 1944. Its foundations go much deeper. In fact a stronger case can be made that it was founded in 1903.

But Meto's precise words were "Macedonia only became a country in 1944". Now given what we know about the Greek discourse that we were first invented in 1944, that our ethnicity, our language and our culture were "founded" for the first time in 1944 - to use the words of Iavakos Michailidis "we were literally invented overnight" - isn't this kind of UMD rhetoric just plain stupid? UMD has a TALENT FOR TAKING "FACTS" OUT OF THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT, which is precisely what is NOT needed here. Historical context is everything. The problem for the rest of us Macedonians is that politicians, and politician lovers like UMD think they are "Above" history and above historical disputes, and that "as politicians" they can overcome these problems. This is whats driving them and motivating them. As "politicians" UMD loonies believe they can bypass certain historical facts - this is why over the years we have seen UMD "consistently" make one compromise after another. UMD believes in the negotiations, because it believes the negotiations are the ONLY way we can overcome our historical differences. This means bending over, it means countless, countless little compromises. Why would UMD be so behind a process that negates us? Is the purpose of backing Greece within the framework of these negotiations, giving the Greek position legitimacy "to overcome our differences"?

What kind of compromises does UMD have for us, and what are UMD willing to concede? I think the answers are found right here.

Fuck that Meto is really turning out to be a traitor to the Macedonian people. UMD philosophy appears to be based on SDSM values.

Meto, you'd be best to keep your opinions to yourself from now on. You keep sticking your feet in our mouth mate and enough is enough.